Playoffs need altering!

[cowboyskid29]

Find a way to have 6-7 seeds play a win you're in game, similar to MLB wildcards

 

[Crown Royal]

Yeah, and they also beat a highly favored Saints team in the playoffs. Not exactly strong support for keeping sub .500 teams out -- they represented themselves well in the playoffs that year.

I don't think that means you should reward them with the playoffs. Bad teams beat good teams often.

 

[jazzcat22]

Too bad. Win more games.

I don't see changes coming either. But it should be changed. I proposed changes in another thread a couple of weeks ago.

If a division winner had 7 wins or less, they are replaced by a 3rd wildcard team if they have a better record. If the division winner and the 3rd WC team is tied, the division winner gets in.

Most the time changing something just for change, is not a good idea.
Your suggestion is not all that bad though, could be something to it. But how many times in the past would have this occurred.

The only way it really would work is to have no divisions at all, top 6 teams make it in.

 

[Crown Royal]

Most the time changing something just for change, is not a good idea.
Your suggestion is not all that bad though, could be something to it. But how many times in the past would have this occurred.

The only way it really would work is to have no divisions at all, top 6 teams make it in.

I would have no problem missing the playoffs if the NFC S winner was 10-6 or even 9-7, and the Cowboys made it to 11-5.

I have a problem wiht a 6-10 team making it.

 

[Alexander]

Something like this happens once or so a decade, the last time the Seahawks jump started their rise to the top by beating New Orleans.

It just happens to have people up in arms because the Cowboys could be negatively impacted. Did not hear this kind of complaint in the past. Dallas has had win or in games the last few years and would have made the playoffs at 9-7.

Would people here be upset if they beat the Eagles last year only to have the Cardinals jump over them because of their ten wins? You bet there would be.

It does not need changing other than maybe not rewarding division winners with home games, but allowing the record to dictate the game site.

 

[LandryFan]

Yeah I think this is the most likely scenario. It sucks when you see divisions like the NFC South steal away a playoff birth from better teams, but that's an anomoly more than a norm. I, for one, enjoy the importance of division games in the NFL.

Totally agree. Even if it costs Dallas a playoff berth, I don't want the Divisional importance to go away. Like you said, this year is a rarity in terms of a potentially/likely losing record getting in.

 

[cowboys2233]

I don't think that means you should reward them with the playoffs. Bad teams beat good teams often.

I have no problem changing the rule, just playing devil's advocate. It is going to suck seeing an 11-5 team left out this year...unless it's the Eagles. Then I will laugh and laugh and laugh.

 

[Direwolf63]

Most the time changing something just for change, is not a good idea.
Your suggestion is not all that bad though, could be something to it. But how many times in the past would have this occurred.

The only way it really would work is to have no divisions at all, top 6 teams make it in.

Nobody is in favor of getting rid of divisions. That shouldn't even be in the discussion.
And it's not making a change for the sake of making a change. It's making a change to avoid the situation we are in today.
The fact that this situation doesn't happen all the time does not invalidate the change. The change only kicks in when required.
A 6-10 team should not kick out a 10-6 team, or even an 11-5 team just because they won their division. It cheapens the league as a whole, IMO.

 

[Direwolf63]

Something like this happens once or so a decade, the last time the Seahawks jump started their rise to the top by beating New Orleans.

It just happens to have people up in arms because the Cowboys could be negatively impacted. Did not hear this kind of complaint in the past. Dallas has had win or in games the last few years and would have made the playoffs at 9-7.

Would people here be upset if they beat the Eagles last year only to have the Cardinals jump over them because of their ten wins? You bet there would be.

It does not need changing other than maybe not rewarding division winners with home games, but allowing the record to dictate the game site.

Division winners with 9 wins or more would not be jumped over by a 3rd WC team, even if they have 10 or 11 wins. A division winner with a winning record guarantees your spot in the playoffs.

 

[Direwolf63]

Totally agree. Even if it costs Dallas a playoff berth, I don't want the Divisional importance to go away. Like you said, this year is a rarity in terms of a potentially/likely losing record getting in.

The fact that is doesn't happen all the time doesn't invalidate making a change. It only kicks in when required. When all division winners have winning records, seedings go on as it always has.

 

[Derinyar]

I'm in general against the idea of a sub 500 team getting a shot in the playoffs. I don't care enough to make it into a change the format issue.

I suspect a lot of angst could go away if people realize that a playoff is not about finding out who the best team is. Playoffs, especially single elimination playoffs, are for deciding a champion. Were the Giants a better team then us in 2007? No. We're they better then the Pats that year? Hell no. Are they the Superbowl champion for that year? Yes.

People like playoffs because they provide drama. They provide a concrete answer to a question. Its just not the question most people think it is.

 

[TrailBlazer]

What if we were 7-9 but won the division, but yet weren't allowed in the playoffs, because it was the worst record for playoff teams, so we are ousted from a team finishing 8-8.

We wouldn't deserve it. Plain and simple

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I'm in general against the idea of a sub 500 team getting a shot in the playoffs. I don't care enough to make it into a change the format issue.

I suspect a lot of angst could go away if people realize that a playoff is not about finding out who the best team is. Playoffs, especially single elimination playoffs, are for deciding a champion. Were the Giants a better team then us in 2007? No. We're they better then the Pats that year? Hell no. Are they the Superbowl champion for that year? Yes.

People like playoffs because they provide drama. They provide a concrete answer to a question. Its just not the question most people think it is.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Doomsday101]

What would the effect be to keep it the way it is, except adding the one caveat that the Division winners MUST have winning records?

The effect? Win your division and your in simple as that. I don't think the league will put in exception when it comes to division winners even if the division winner is below 500. It does not happen often where that is the case and I don't see any big changes outside of adding a team which is not something I'm really in favor of

 

[bayeslife]

The league already knows that. Expect changes this off season.

Expect 0 changes to the playoffs in the offseason.

 

[jazzcat22]

We wouldn't deserve it. Plain and simple

Why would we deserve it?
I don't get this line of thinking from people. Do you think the Falcons fans right now care what their record is, as long as they make the playoffs. But yet some claiming to be fans of the Cowboys have an issue with it.
It's the current set up, and a team is rewarded for winning the division.
Now that is plain and simple.

 

[Direwolf63]

I'm in general against the idea of a sub 500 team getting a shot in the playoffs. I don't care enough to make it into a change the format issue.

I suspect a lot of angst could go away if people realize that a playoff is not about finding out who the best team is. Playoffs, especially single elimination playoffs, are for deciding a champion. Were the Giants a better team then us in 2007? No. We're they better then the Pats that year? Hell no. Are they the Superbowl champion for that year? Yes.

People like playoffs because they provide drama. They provide a concrete answer to a question. Its just not the question most people think it is.

This is all true.

Doesn't change the fact that a 6-10 or a 7-9 team should not be allowed to qualify, IMO.

 

[TrailBlazer]

The NFC South is all the ammunition you need to make an argument for expanding the playoffs. Just ridiculous.

 

[LandryFan]

The fact that is doesn't happen all the time doesn't invalidate making a change. It only kicks in when required. When all division winners have winning records, seedings go on as it always has.

I understand both sides of the debate and really think both sides have merit. I just happen to fall on the side of not changing the format of eliminating Divisional winners from the playoffs because they had a poor record. To me, one of the problems with changing that format is knowing where to draw the line in terms of replacing a divisional winner. Having said all that, I can see some sort of change in the future no matter my opinion.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Why would we deserve it?
I don't get this line of thinking from people. Do you think the Falcons fans right now care what their record is, as long as they make the playoffs. But yet some claiming to be fans of the Cowboys have an issue with it.
It's the current set up, and a team is rewarded for winning the division.
Now that is plain and simple.

If you win only 7 games. You don't deserve to be in the playoffs. And a team with more wins should not be held out because of it. Why reward mediocrity?